1. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191489 by windfall on June 11, 2008 at 3:55 am

jaf wrote: 'Marcus: ...it tries to challenge an idea in evolution, which is that we're optimal, that we've been sort of perfectly created by evolution itself.' NO, there is no 'idea' in evolution that we are optimal.

I think what he meant was that he was challenging a popular misconception of humans being optimally evolved. Poorly stated, I admit, but then he had to speak quickly to get a word in edgewise with Mr. MTV. So, I think this is uncontroversial.

2. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191373 by windfall on June 10, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Ugh, what difference does it make what 'kluge' means in *German*? Marcus' book is in English as far as I know...

Wiktionary sheds some light:

"kluge (plural kluges)

Something that should not work, but does.

Usage notes
Today, the terms kluge and kludge are widely believed to be alternative spellings for the same word, although a distinction in usage can perhaps be detected: in the U.K., the connotation of kludge is almost wholly negative (as befits its alleged derivation), while U.S. usage, following the older spelling kluge and the alleged German derivation, admits some fondness for the cleverness or functionality underlying a kludge that works.

Ample jokes have been made about how these terms self-referentially apply to their own tangled history."

I have always understood it to mean something that is 'thrown together' (i.e. poorly designed), but works; usually a negative connotation.

{edit: Spinoza, you just beat me to it! :-)]

3. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183736 by windfall on May 22, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Two comments:

1. I was also struck by the silliness of the claim that 'the Sun seems to be unique, as far as we know, in having an inhabited planet.'. What evidence is there for this claim? The present situation speaks *maybe* to the notion that we don't live in a really crowded, highly advanced, and extrememly social neighborhood. We have only just begun our search and the distances are immense. For all we know, the galaxy could be absolutely teeming with intelligent life. Maybe they're just watching us and waiting. Maybe they aren't impressed with our little anthill (to borrow someone else's metaphor).

2. The creationist argument about the special properties of the earth, etc. puzzles me. If the Christian god exists and is truly omnipotent, then what difference does it make how appropriate the conditions are for life?

4. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #182522 by windfall on May 20, 2008 at 10:23 am

Enjoyable.

Can't help wondering: why was the POI Chris Hedges interview not posted here?

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/

It's certainly relevant. Moderator?

Can't say I agree with him on all points, and I know Sam Harris has torn him to shreds on occasion, but he does seem to make some intelligent points (in between his continuous reminders of how much time he's spent in the Middle East). I'm considering reading his book now. (I'm referring to Hedges, not Dacey).

5. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #175117 by windfall on May 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Sorry, I think this is a problem. This falls under 'unnecessarily endangering the lives of children' I think.

The comments made by Jesus Christ asking 'are they really doing any harm?' was answered by Will Young's comments (and others).

Thought experiment: let's roll infants in front of oncoming traffic (the cars being driven by participants in the ritual, of course). As long as no infants are hurt in the process, it's ok, right? Wrong! It's a stupid idea, even if you do it for ten years without a single incident.

I would bet my yearly salary that at least one time there was a tragic fatality in this medieval stupidity.

I agree that the parents should be thrown first off a 300ft cliff first to warm them up.

I don't think it's out of the question that the brain is suffering from this impact. I'm sure the study could be done. There have to be enough controls in that area (people that opt out of this barbarity).

6. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174925 by windfall on May 3, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Wow, thanks, Jack. I see what you mean. And that jhuger site was a hoot, especially his FAQ.

I think I still might have a go at my own semi-parody of a tract which tries to counter the awful messages they're sending, but in a serious way (as outlined above).

7. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174897 by windfall on May 3, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Ugh, what terrifying drivel. I've seen these things littering the subway station on occasion. And I live in the enlightened Northeast! I've often thought about printing off a rebuttal cartoon lampooning someone who found one of these tracts and took it seriously. Like showing how they ruined part of their life because of it. I nearly blew my college education because of BS peddlers like the campus crusade for christ.

I couldn't read the whole thing; it was causing a physical reaction (stomach turning).

Two things caught my eye though:

1. He felt the need to define the word 'relative' in a footnote. (A comic with footnotes!) Says something about the intended audience.

2. Upon hearing the Adam and Eve story, the boy asks the girl 'Where did you get such a ridiculous story?' She answers, 'From God.' So, if her parents brought her to the church of the FSM and filled her with that, would she respond 'from the FSM'?

8. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #169363 by windfall on April 25, 2008 at 9:26 pm

I agree with Phil Rimmer: to understand what the first guy was getting at, you need to read some Antonio Damasio (Descartes' Error, for example). I admit, he was a little incoherent, but what he was saying was quite sound and in line with a modern understanding of the brain-body interaction.

I rather enjoyed Dan's comments in this discussion. I really like his example of the common cold to argue that just because religion may have been with the human species for a long time, that doesn't make it adaptive *for us*. It is useful for itself. This is an idea that is very difficult to get your mind around, but once you do, it makes many things clear.

Regarding the Dostoyevsky quote, I think this is a very serious issue, *but* ultimately it comes down to the fact that we are wired up with a moral sense. So, it really doesn't matter if there is no god, everything is permitted only for those for whom everything would still be permitted even if there were a god: the people who have a damaged moral sense.

9. The books that inspire me

Comment #157904 by windfall on April 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Halfway through and enjoying it. Though the audio is SO faint! I'm trying to listen on headphones on the commute to work and it's murder. I can barely make out their voices. I know it's not my headphones either, because at the end of the first part, the BBC guy's voice blasts in at full volume.

I recently read Sagan's Varieties of the Scientific Experience and loved it. I'm looking forward to Demon Haunted World.

If I might humbly offer two of my own favorites: fiction - Dostoyevsky's The Brothers' Karamazov; non-fiction - Diamond's Guns Germs & Steel. Both books rocked my world in their own way.

10. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150963 by windfall on March 27, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Ah, that was punishing! I was walking down the street listening to it on headphones and I wanted to scream every time he would talk about his 'evidence-based' belief in god. He mentioned this several times. WHAT EVIDENCE, Alister?!? What are you talking about? Not once during his speeches did he offer one shred of this supposed evidence. It was all just fuzzy circumlocution, all the way down. At the end of one of his meandering explorations of semantics, I would be like 'What?!'. You don't even know where to begin questioning him. He's quite good at obfuscation. It's like watching a long snake eat itself by the tail.

I thought Sue Blackmore did pretty well, but missed many opportunities to call him on things he got away with. He is pompous and slicker than grease.

11. Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Comment #138204 by windfall on March 4, 2008 at 4:02 am

Religion in the US is seen as some sort of default condition. All you have to do is pick a flavor. It doesn't matter which one, as long as you have an answer to that question: "What are you?".

Athiesm is seen as some sort of immoral cult. I'd be glad if we were viewed as arrogant know-it-alls, but all I ever sense is this faint shudder, or this look like 'poor thing'.

BTW, Comment #137964 by markg, VERY funny and observant remark! :-)

12. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #131022 by windfall on February 21, 2008 at 5:47 pm

I enjoyed this interview.

Admittedly, I was annoyed by many of his comments. For example, the way he referred to 'God' as an extant thing while also stating that he doesn't believe there is one. But this is out of pure habit, I guess, and also, one could refer to Santa without believing in him (but I think it would be bizarre).

Also the way he labeled himself an agnostic when he clearly is an atheist - he said several times that he doesn't believe there is a god. Sure, he said he doesn't know, but NO ONE DOES! That doesn't make one an agnostic. This man has made up his mind that he doesn't think there is a god. That makes him an atheist. Atheism is not about certainty, but rather conclusion based on the evidence.

That aside, I thought this was great. He has the credentials of a pure Christian. He's been there. He knows the books inside and out. He doesn't talk down to them. I've got to believe there were Christians out there that heard this guy and gave their beliefs some thought. That's fabulous.

EDIT: regarding referring to Santa without believing in him, I mean without irony, and not talking to a child.

13. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128723 by windfall on February 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I thought it was pretty hilarious when he flew out the window at the end. :o)

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116584 by windfall on January 26, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Smith, I'm afraid Elcristoph is quite correct about Ken Miller's devout Catholicism. He's such a reasonable and well-spoken guy, knows evolutionary biology cold, and did such a fantastic job on the Dover trial, but...he's a Catholic. He goes into great detail about it on the excellent PBS special on Evolution a few years back. One word: compartmentalization.

15. Lewis Black - The Devil's Handiwork

Comment #116400 by windfall on January 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Thanks, bhoytony, that Billy Connolly video almost made me piss myself from laughing!! '53 virgins! What a nightmare!'

16. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114765 by windfall on January 22, 2008 at 7:02 pm

"The fact that we can observe these substances at such a vast distance means that there are huge amounts of them in Arp 220,"

Correction: it means there *were* huge amounts of them 250 million years ago, when the light left the galaxy. ;-)

17. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112087 by windfall on January 16, 2008 at 9:41 am

Way to go, Dinesh! When is Sam Harris going to put him in his place? Also. are there links to Tom Cruise's rant?

18. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92541 by windfall on November 30, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Shad0w, I'm so jealous. I showed up there for one of the two (!) overflow rooms. I was there right at 7:15 and there were two university cops out in front of the door turning people away saying it was full. And I had reservations (so did half the people there). There was a big crowd being turned away. This was really popular! I had to walk home. :(
I wish I had gotten to see Dennett in action. Can't wait for the video...

19. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #90200 by windfall on November 23, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Clearthinker:

You're not witnessing intolerance here, but rather extreme frustration at the lack of maturity displayed by these 'scientists'. I put that word in scare quotes because they are not playing by the rules of science. Real science is cold-hearted. If you put your idea out there into the peer-reviewed public and it's not respected, then it doesn't follow that there's a conspiracy.

If astrologers got together en masse and demanded that their ideas be respected as science, do you think the scientific community would be a shred in the wrong to instantly dismiss their 'theories'?

The scientific method has made modern civilization possible. That is a fact. Some people's careers have been ruined in the process. Some of their ideas have been ahead of their time and some have been junk. One problem is that the public can't tell the difference, and are especially vulnerable to junk science when it supports their own belief systems. This is just human psychology. You are being used. They are playing on your empathetic emotion here and you fell for it. Give it some thought.

ID is not a scientific theory by definition; it a mere criticism of one. It makes no testable predictions. The content of its criticism has been torn down from every possible angle. It is done. It is petty and juvenile to take this repulsive path into the minds of the credulous public.

Again, if alchemists did it, would you have a problem with it? If they wanted alchemy taught alongside chemistry to your children and were able to do it partly because they convinced the public that there was an ivory-tower conspiracy against them, would this trouble you? Would it make you want to swear up a storm? Would that have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the alchemists were in the right? Give that some thought.

20. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #89687 by windfall on November 21, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Funny, I just noticed that when talking about the history of the pantheon at 1:01 of part 2, he pretty obviously edited in 'and women' after 'a place where the nation could honor its great men'.

Take a listen, it's quite obvious. Gave me a chuckle.

21. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #88124 by windfall on November 14, 2007 at 6:59 pm

I really enjoy listening to Miller speak. Such rare and concise articulation. I thought his explanation of his position was absolutely trenchant:

"I am only a non-believer to the extent that I am surrounded by people who make assertions for which I cannot lend my assent."

I'm going to use that. :)

He's the modern-day Bertrand Russell.

22. Root and Branch

Comment #74024 by windfall on September 27, 2007 at 5:02 am

Comment #73363 by Russell Blackford on September 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm:

'The title, "Root and Branch", might not be optimal, though, when your surname is "Hacking".'

That was priceless! Very nice.

23. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #74013 by windfall on September 27, 2007 at 4:41 am

This from Wiki:

The Colorado City/Hildale, Utah area has the world's highest incidence of fumarase deficiency, an extremely rare genetic condition which causes severe mental retardation. Geneticists attribute this to the prevalence of cousin marriage between descendants of two of the town's founders, Joseph Smith Jessup and John Yeates Barlow; at least half the double community's roughly 8,000 inhabitants are descended from one or both.

Revolting and sad, but I suppose it must be god's will. I pity the poor slobs that fall under this particular spell.

24. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70629 by windfall on September 16, 2007 at 11:24 am

Geez, what's with all the hostility towards rap? Lighten up...

Bad YouTube, bad! What an ignorant abuse of power! Hopefully, they will come to their senses soon.

25. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68993 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm

His faith is not unshakable, but he ADMIRES people who have that kind of faith. So, I take that to mean he'd like to have that kind of faith.

That kind of faith is the absolute picture of arrogance. While I'm glad he does not possess it currently, it says a lot about his eroded sense of scientific integrity that he respects it.

26. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68989 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Again, the arrogance: the scientist's net is big, yes, but it's not EVERYTHING. How pray-tell do you know this? Scientists do not assume they know everything, that would defeat the purpose of science. You, however, do propose to know something that science does not (and you say CANNOT know). Collins wants us to allow as a 'first principle' the idea that there is more there than we see. This is an a priori line of argument that can be used to prove anything:

My claim: my invisible friend cannot be detected by your 'scientific' instruments.

Your rebuttal: how do YOU detect your invisible friend?! Who is playing with logic now, Francis?

27. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68988 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Miracles: OCCASSIONALLY the laws of nature are suspended. An atheist would reject this outright, but a believer would consider the evidence.

What evidence? There has never been any credible evidence. If there had been, it would have been devoured by the scientific community.

Presumably he's referring to miracles of the distant past. How does Hitch refer to it? A rumor of a rumor of hearsay of an illusion surrounding some non-events - or something like that. How does Collins evaluate Sathya Sai Baba? Presumably he considers these miracles fakes. Why, I wonder?

28. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68987 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 11:58 am

He says that science should remain silent on the question of the existence of god and that science can not contribute to this debate (except by providing 'clues'), but then goes on to say it's appropriate for a scientific journal to give a (positive) review of his book.

Uh, come again?

29. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68982 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 11:49 am

Then he asks: if atheists want to say that good and evil is an illusion, then why do they care at all about good and evil? In other words, why would an atheist bother to be good?

This is an interesting question which is being investigated from many angles in many disciplines, but I think it's enough to reflect on the fact that for at least a few hundreds of thousands of years before the 'history' recorded in the old testament, there were people around who, it seems likely had a moral sense. There are so many societies that the OT knew nothing about, and which were already ancient. Does Collins want to say that these were completely immoral people, who had no idea that indiscriminate killing was a bad idea?

A far more persuasive argument I think is the expanding circle argument where the first groups of humans were mainly closely-related individuals and Collins agrees that natural selection would dictate that these other gene-carriers are worth more than strangers. From there as groups get larger and individuals have to deal more and more with less closely-related individuals on a daily basis, the Zeitgeist changes and the brain evolves to include these others in the 'circle' (including through meme exchange). The circle is still expanding today.

Occam's Razor favors this argument over his.

30. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68977 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 11:28 am

Ok, I've listened to a bit more now: the atheist position is arrogant because it doesn't allow for the possibility of anything outside of nature. This demonstrates great hubris on the part of atheists.

No, atheists DO acknowledge this possibility; we merely discard it as unlikely in the extreme, based on the available evidence. It is theists of all stripes who are arrogant, because they claim to know things that cannot be know and to know the will of an unseen being. The vast majority of believers with whom I've argued refuse to admit the possibility that they are wrong. This is arrogance, Francis.

Further, I've heard him claim before that he has 'evidence' for believing, and that he used to assume before converting that belief was strictly based on an emotional experience. His own book pivots on his EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE at the waterfall. His 'evidence' is DNA.

I respect his scientific achievements, but this claim reminds me of Kirk Cameron's recent claim of 'evidence' which (as if there was any doubt beforehand) proved entirely hollow.

31. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68972 by windfall on September 9, 2007 at 10:56 am

I'm only at the beginning of this interview, but I wanted to comment on Collins' remark that the human genome project was an 'altruistic' effort.

Uh, I don't think so. The people involved certainly were paid researchers (maybe not highly paid, but paid all the same). Also, everyone involved knew of the potential accolades of the success of such a project (Nobel prizes, patents, etc.).

I would hardly describe their effort as altruistic. That doesn't in the least imply that they were bad, or greedy or anything - far from it. But, 'altruistic'? That's a little silly.

He seems to be saying this because the work was put onto the internet for free. That still does not make it altruistic. Again, they were paid researchers whose names will go down in history.

32. 'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' Released on DVD

Comment #68037 by windfall on September 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Wow, has anybody seen THIS?!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dQ5KJ8rgA&mode=related&search=

(Ted Haggard admits he bought Meth from gay prostitute)

Talk about bizarre!

33. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67422 by windfall on September 3, 2007 at 11:44 am

Followed the first link to Amazon and found this:

Customers viewing this page may be interested in these Sponsored Links (What's this?)

Live Psychic Readings
Psychics.kasamba.com 24/7 Personal Psychic Readings. No charge till you hit Hire.

Big surprise there.

34. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65799 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Richard Morgan: Fair enough. I suppose I should be a wee bit more careful about throwing words like 'obvious' around, but I wasn't invoking anything more obvious than the idea that there's empty space / patches of nothing in our local area of the universe, which I don't think any sane person would deny. I'm not talking quantum physics here, I'm talking simply lack of matter.

I mean 'nothing' in Geraint's sense of the word, in his/her post just now (and he sounds like he knows what he's talking about).

Incidentally, Geraint seems to fall squarely on my side of the argument and, if he/she's an astrophysicist, that erodes your earlier statement that you hope I'm alone in my claims.

That last bit about the devil I'm not going to bite, I assume you're not serious. Sure it COULD be true, but the probability based on the available evidence is vanishing.

But, I think we've pushed this far enough. Agree to disagree and all that (if we still do, that is).

35. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65782 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Richard Morgan, I refuse to edit my post after a reasonable amount of time has passed, so I'll admit that my question about your possible post-modernist bent was off-target. What I really had in mind was a kind of zealous, hair-trigger pedant. Someone who instantly derails an argument by demanding evidence for every claim, even the banal, if they sense any possible disagreement with their own view.

By the way, I say all this in the spirit of friendly debate, so, nothing personal.

36. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65779 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Thank you, A. I thought I was lost in the twilight zone for a little while there. :)

37. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65778 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Richard Morgan, possibly we're not on the same wavelength as you say. I'm trying to find out.

You seem to be objecting to the way I phrase things and not to the content of my argument.

What I said in my first post was: 'It should be obvious on reflection that some space is empty.' I was clearly saying 'empty of matter'. This is a regular, ordinary observation, which I daresay doesn't need to be backed up by data.

What's so controversial about this? If I said 'It should be obvious on reflection that the sky is blue,' would you come back with: 'according to which criteria?, "obvious" - to whom? using which data, and which reasoning processes?'. I certainly hope not. And it wouldn't be a tinge unscientific to not question this fact. Your objections sound a bit post-modernist. I'm absolutely not trying to label you that way. But, is that your angle?

I think you automatically dove into a pile of assumptions of things I was not claiming at all. You seem all too eager to read something into this discovery, which I think is unwarranted.

My initial comment stands that space simply devoid of matter is not mysterious, and that some people on this post don't seem to get that.

Is this a controversial statement on your wavelength, or have we really been in agreement all along, but you just jumped to a conclusion too early.

Does anyone else in here agree with me on this?

38. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65768 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 11:48 am

By the way, the astronomers quoted in the story (and elsewhere) are on my side. They're simply surprised to see so much empty space. They're not theorizing about the meaning of 'voids' and 'holes' and 'nothing', except to the extent that there is just no matter there:

"Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass pull matter from less dense areas, Tully said. After 13 billion years "they are losing out in the battle to where there are larger concentrations of matter," he said."

The term 'hole' here is misleading. It doesn't mean a tear in the fabric of space-time, it just means no matter there. That is not mysterious.

39. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65765 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 11:42 am

Richard Morgan: I think you just missed my point entirely. Ok, sure, be suspicious of phrases that begin that way, but don't you agree that people are generally making more of this than is warranted?

Use Occam's razor here. There isn't anything visible in that region of space. Three possibilities (at least): 1. There's no matter there. This is unusual, but not mysterious; 2. There is matter there, but we can't see it (e.g. dark matter, too small for the resolution of the telescope, etc.); 3. As yet undiscovered phenomenon, new to science. Which of these is the most likely? 3 is the least likely using Occam's Razor (which DOES NOT rule it out, it just makes it unlikely).

People are talking about empty space as though it's something unusual. I'm saying it's not.

40. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65750 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 9:30 am

Richard Morgan, I can't quite make out whether you're agreeing with what I said or not. But just in case, let me briefly restate:

The data so far indicates that we've found a spot in space where there aren't any of the usual players (galaxies, stars, planets, gas, etc.). Many posters have asked (somewhat oddly I think) 'how can there be nothing there; there must be SOMETHING there'. I'm just pointing out the silliness of this comment. In our local spot in the universe, there are some planets, moons, stars, comets, asteroids and dust WITH SPACE IN BETWEEN. In the macro-world in which we live our everyday lives, nobody finds it necessary to reflect on the strangeness of this empty space, quantum field fluctuations notwithstanding.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that this new discovery isn't unusual. It might even be something which we haven't yet encountered. But to regard this empty space as different from ordinary empty space, that seems unnecessary and almost naive.

Am I alone here (in this observation)?

41. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65702 by windfall on August 25, 2007 at 7:48 pm

I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I don't think there's any new science here.

Regarding the 'there has to be something there' comments, uh, what do you think exists between here and the moon (besides some rocks and satellites)? It should be obvious on reflection that some space is empty. If it weren't then we'd live in a very different kind of universe. So this empty region is A LOT bigger than other ones, so what? Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating, but it's not that kind of mysterious.

They're not saying there's no space-time there, just no matter in it (or at least none we can presently detect).

Just my two cents...

42. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62679 by windfall on August 10, 2007 at 8:48 pm

All this talk about Hume's Fork and our inability to trust reality enough to get our ethics from it makes me think for some reason of Sam Harris' great point about the different requirements people have for evidence in different situations.

If someone tells you that your spouse is cheating on you, you will ask for evidence. If they produce the graphic photos, then you'll likely be convinced. If they tell you they dreamed it, then well...

I guess my point is that, when we're not pushing our minds to the limits of philosophy, we take things at face value (and of course we can be deceived).

If religious people are challenged to provide evidence for their beliefs, they go into philosophical mode, because they know that's a safe zone for such beliefs. But in the real world, where things really matter and have consequences, the god hypothesis (as Stenger puts it) seems rather obviously false, or at the very least irrelevant to ethics.

43. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #61285 by windfall on August 4, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Absolutely brilliant mockery! That's hard to pull off, mocking someone to their face while taking care to keep them from picking up on it.

Though I find it hard to believe Behe didn't realize he was being mocked. It's kind of pathetic for that reason, though. You almost feel sorry for the guy.

But that mousetrap retort was worth its weight in gold!

44. Ducking the God Question

Comment #60720 by windfall on August 2, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Good point, hungarianelephant, it's 'scientific-Latin', but, as you point out, is derived from Greek.

The plural mistake always reminds me of the incorrect 'octopi'. This results from overgeneralization. People assume it's Latin and are uncomfortable with the English plural '-es'. I prefer 'octopuses' and 'platypuses'. The reason is that, once these words enter into relatively common usage, they become English words. They are borrowings, and like all borrowings are subject to the morphology of the language that borrows them. That's why we don't say 'bolsheviki' or 'troiki', just to use Russian as an example.

I also get annoyed when people insist on using data as a plural. I don't mind if people pluralize it this way, but I do mind if they insist that it's 'correct'. I always respond, 'well then why don't you say 'look at this plot of the datorum''. They typically won't even get it, because they don't know any Latin.

Sorry for the off-topic rant. I'll stop.

I also thought the article was sloppy and stopped reading halfway through.

45. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59298 by windfall on July 28, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Hmm, tough one. To wear or not to wear...

I thinks it's a pretty cool design. True it could be a good way to invite conversation, but then, I don't ALWAYS want to invite that topic.

I don't know. To be honest this cuts to the very heart of the question of whether or not this movement will be a flash in the pan 10 years from now.

I think for MOST people, the hardest part about 'coming out' cold turkey like this is the idea that many current friends and associates will probably think 'Geez, lighten up' and you'll slowly begin to get a personal sense of the meaning of the word 'anathema'.

I've felt this cold wave from friends on several occasions now. When you try to casually raise the subject (or even if they bring it up!), and you start dropping names: TGD, End of Faith, etc. Or you lightly engage them in argument. The response has been mixed, but several friends have sent the message that this subject is not open for discussion. What do you do then? And don't give me that 'they're not your real friends' line either. It's not that easy.

One friend I've actually pretty much converted I think. But then there's work, etc. This is the hardest thing.

PS. don't correct people's English on web discussion boards; it's lame and gets in the way of the whole point - discussion.

46. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58969 by windfall on July 26, 2007 at 7:24 pm

I've been thinking more on this. This could be a good thing. He referred people to RichardDawkins.net several times. Richard, maybe you'll get a convert or two out of this.

Also, while I agree that most holy-rollers don't get irony (it's one of the subroutines in the programming), our response should NOT be to stop being ironic. That said, many people who post on this site make extremely straightforward, non-ironical statements all the time, so it's not like we're all just a bunch of cat-calling jerks or something.

Irony helps us maintain our sanity in this crazy world of exhausting religious zealotry.

47. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58939 by windfall on July 26, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Shame on you, Richard, for creating an open forum, where some people can express views that others may disagree with! It would be better if everyone were muzzled, bound in a straight-jacket and force fed religious gobbledy-gook.

Excellent response from Colbert!

I, for one, am not planning on burning or recycling my bible; I need it as a reference to refute crazy christians with their own text. Though, I will steadfastly defend anyone's right to do so. Just as I staunchly defend anyone's right to burn a copy of the Iliad (though it would grieve me, as it is great literature).

Burning a church is an idiotic and psychopathic thing to do or even consider. I'm not saying this because bible-boy wants me to disassociate myself from people who suggest such things. I'm saying it because it is an idiotic and psychopathic thing to do or even consider. Besides, many of them are being made into snazzy condos these days.

Bible-boy, don't even make us show you what many of your christian buddies post on this site. Oh, they're not true christians, you say? Oh, well, that's funny. The posters you mentioned aren't 'true' atheists. Whatever that might mean.

I loved listening to him choke over the word 'Torah'. That was priceless.

48. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57878 by windfall on July 21, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Excellent and moving piece. I agree with those who respect this man for his courage. Many of us have been there, and he's moving in the right direction. This sounds somewhat similar to changes I went through in my own life, though much earlier on. Good luck to him to finally let go of his faith and really live.

I was thinking after I read this that, it's odd how almost all of the events that have guided him through his journey were the actions of other humans. I don't know, it just suddenly struck me as funny that, he's talking ABOUT a supernatural entity that he ASSUMES exists a priori, but what mainly tunes his faith in this entity is what regular people are doing for their own ends.

Assuming there is no god or supernatural element to the universe that intervenes in the lives of humans, it's really weird that many of us go around interpreting each other's actions in this way.

How exhausting it is trying to view the world through the distorted prism of faith, trying to balance this impossible ledger that is not meant to be balanced. What a relief to see the world as it (very likely) is.

49. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57715 by windfall on July 20, 2007 at 5:36 pm

I found it odd that he mentioned Steven Pinker with Richard Dawkins. Pinker is an atheist - though he doesn't really come out and say it very often. His deconstruction of the 'ghost in the machine' (the soul) in his excellent book "The Blank Slate" is surely supreme. But, as I say, he seems hesitant to come out and criticize religion as such, rather than just some of its tenets.

I was really hoping his next book would make him the fifth 'horseman of the anti-apocalypse' (as Hitchens so colorfully put it recently). Alas, it is called "The Language of Thought". Nevertheless, I will buy it and devour it as soon as it goes on sale. Pinker is a suburb and clear thinker and elucidator.

50. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56303 by windfall on July 14, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Those Amazing Randi posts were interesting. I too raised my eyebrows when I read those lines about psychic phenomena and reincarnation in Harris' book.

It's important to read both posts (the second is Harris' response to Randi's criticism). I think Harris is guilty only of not really reading the research (or its criticism) that he cited (which is a bad idea), but also, being too glib in order to make a point. His point in the book was that, if people are willing to investigate things undogmatically, and scientifically, and publish the results, he's at least willing to entertain the claims. He was trying to contrast dogmatic belief in seemingly improbable things with belief in seemingly improbable things based on at least SOME evidence (however flimsy it may turn out).

IQHQ, I like the end of your first post. These are important questions. This is the second 'spell' that Dennett wonders if we should break. I too wonder. I'm optimistic that things will be ok for several reasons: 1. highly 'atheistic' societies do very well, and they presumably have a similar distribution of attraction to religious ideas in the population as in the US. 2. Education. The primary vehicle for sustaining religious ties to morality is the educating children to believe there is a such a connection. 3. Many people have lived decades believing that morality depends on religion, but have eventually come to their senses. 4. This is why we have laws and courts: in the end, all we really have is our instincts and the social contract.

PS. drichlin, I think you meant to say 'quod erat demonstrandum', not 'quid pro quo' (or maybe I misunderstood you).